The initial media report:
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,130301,00.html?
The subsequent cowardly explanation:
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,130302,00.html
Conclusion: Another brat gets away cheap and fails to learn what being responsible for your actions is.
Wow, that was a scary leap in logic;
I would be fair and objective and take everything I read with a pinch of salt, especially when the story appears to favour one party more than another, and objectiveness is
lost.
An example of what I'm saying:
On March 3, 1991, King, on parole from prison on a robbery conviction, led police on a high speed pursuit, refusing to pull over in response to the red lights and sirens behind him. Finally, after driving through several red lights and boulevard stops, he pulled over in the Lake View Terrace district. The Los Angeles police were assisted by other law enforcement. King, who had a record of drunk driving and was believed to be under the influence of PCP by the officers on scene, resisted arrest even after being tasered, tackled, and struck with batons by four LAPD officers: Ofc. Laurence Powell, Ofc. Timothy Wind, Ofc. Theodore Briseno and Sgt. Stacey Koon (three whites and one Hispanic). He is also alleged to have lunged for the weapon of one of the police officers on site, although that event, supposedly being early in the altercation, was not caught on the tape.
Let us not underestimate the powers of the media and suddenly forget that we are a nation where many, many people rant against the fact that there is only ONE main newspaper company.
You want examples? Just look at all the rugby reports for secondary and JC playoffs, I don't have to say anymore.
The Rodney King incident was treated as a repeat offender case, he had a bad background, etc. If there was no true record of the incident, the abuse of power by the police back then due to their own prejudices would have gone unrecorded, and they would not have suffered any consequences (speaking of which, all of the officers indicted were acquitted anyways).
Does Singapore need to go down this road?
We all seem to have this inane need to want to judge quickly, decisively, for whatever reason. I don't know, to put it candidly it seems to me that we just want to show our moral superiority, that we know what is right and what is wrong.
I'm not siding with the boy, do not mistake me. I'm just saying that I'm godawful tired of seeing all these funny arguments where people take sides and jump to conclusions and make drastic leaps in logic based on what they read in the newspapers. It gets even more ironic when you remember previous threads where some of these very people (not pointing fingers at anyone here) posted that they were sick and tired of getting only one POV.
I leave you with this question - would you, as a judge, convict the boy based on all these statements? Without any room for investigation whether his claims were true, thereby providing a
plausible explanation for his actions, which would not be then so severe since he was
provoked?
If you would not, then it would be rather hypocritical to judge him in your own minds now, based on these very 2 reports, would it?
